I have no problem with the idea that the Merrill records more detail than a 16MP Bayer. I'm even happy to accept the 30mp equivalent figure people like to quote as a working hypothesis. I'm glad you've provided photos to illustrate it, evidence is a worth a thousand arguments. But... I find I can't trust this example. It looks too extreme to me and is utterly unlike any results I've ever seen elsewhere. Looking at the exif you can maybe begin to see why:

- Raw vs jpeg

- F5.6 vs f11

- 30mm vs 20mm

- Almost perfect lens vs what?

I think you successfully make the point that the DP2m is more detailed than the D7000 and I won't argue with that but this example grossly exaggerates by how much.

If we assume this competition started off pitting a 30MP (equivalent) vs 16MP sensor, your choice of lens for the D7000 turns that into 41MP vs 16MP, your choice of f11 on a 22mm lens will demolish sharpness and your use of jpg vs raw is another handicap. The mysterious Qimage sharpening routines are another complication.

I think overall the result is to confuse rather than to illuminate and given this is the internet will like get spread all over the place as misinformation. I think we both agree on the superiority of the Merrill but this was ill-advised.

I think a more useful exercise is the one I did comparing prints of different sizes from the RX200, DP2m and D800. I used test shots supplied by Mr Blissfly and it was only in prints larger than 30 x 20 inches that I could detect any difference at all between the detail of the three cameras. I have the prints here with me now.